v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> Limited Beta Feedback



Message

Erik Rutins -> v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/10/2006 10:01:38 PM)

Hi all,

The v1.2.18 Beta is now available in the Members' Club. The list of changes since v1.2.17 is as follows:

==================================
v1.2.18 Change List (January 10, 2006)
==================================

Changes 1.2.17->1.2.18
--------------------

* Can no longer disband POW's or units on loan
* Added NOVALIDATE to .ini file options; if NOVALIDATE=1, then this computer will send non-guaranteed messages during multi-play. This will speed up play, but may cause the game to be less stable if packets are being dropped between server/client.
* Detailed combat AI now considers making formation changes more frequently, but is a bit more cautious in each case.
* Fixed bug in detailed combat AI's valuation of attacking garrison units
* Now properly clearing AI's undo buffer
* Fixed bug in AI picking provinces during terms-of-surrender treaty construction
* Fixed m-player bug involving units retreating from detailed combat
* Increased siege damage and chance of initiating siege combat by about 25%
* Maximum damage from a single fire attack is now limited to the strength of the targeted unit divided by 2.
* AI treaty evaluation now places less value on long-term treaty clauses.
* Building a development in a province where there is currently zero levels of that development now costs an additional 50 money.
* Doubled the iron and timber cost of Gun developments.
* Added an iron cost to Wall developments.
* AI will now ignore Rally Locations set by a human player or AI player if there are any enemy units in its capital.
* Frigates now have an anti-privateering function. At the end of every movement phase, each frigate has a 20% chance of destroying one non-allied privateer located in the same movement area. (This destruction is reported in the frigate's and privateer's player's Events Report.)
* Reduced the effective ranges of units in detailed combat. Most infantry now fire effectively only up to three hexes away. Rifle/Jager infantry can fire effective four hexes away. Cavalry can fire effectively only two hexes away. Range of artillery has been reduced so that regular artillery and horse artillery have an effective range of 5 hexes; howitzers, an effective range of 3 hexes; and heavy artillery, an effective range of 6 hexes.
* Massed Artillery upgrades now only increase maximum size of artillery by 16% each. (These improvements are still cumulative with each other.)
* Square Firepower upgrade now makes squares only do 1/2 damage (an improvement from the 1/3 damage they used to do.)



ericbabe -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/10/2006 10:38:15 PM)

Also in 1.2.18:

- AI less likely to attack garrison units in detailed combat.

- Fixed bug involved in AI reinforcing fleets with loose ships.

- Fixed bug: can no longer undo AI's moves at start of your turn.




Khornish -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 12:18:02 AM)

woot woot!

Several of these were pet peeves of mine <cough cough>, so I am very glad they have been addressed. [:)]

Downloading now!



canuck64 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 12:44:29 AM)

you da man, Eric.

I'm so very pleased that you put a limit on casualty totals, after a few upgrades some arty fire was just silly in it's devastation ability. That, as well as the frigates' anti-privateering function, and making the construction of fortresses more spendy, all great implementations. Thanks a bunch!



ian77 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 3:35:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64

you da man, Eric.

I'm so very pleased that you put a limit on casualty totals,



Will this not mean that a full strength division could now only cause a maximum of 500 casualties to a shattered division with only 1000 strength left... effectively no unit can now be destroyed during detailed combat, since its surviving strength can only ever be halved...?

Since NML is effected by casualties, will I now be better off to leave an army facing defeat with lots of depleted divisions, rather than amalgamating them into stronger more effective formations, since smaller weaker units will suffer far fewer casualties if caught in a devestating barrage or volley, and reduce the hit to my NML?

Ian



ian77 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 3:45:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

* Reduced the effective ranges of units in detailed combat. Most infantry now fire effectively only up to three hexes away. Rifle/Jager infantry can fire effective four hexes away. Cavalry can fire effectively only two hexes away. Range of artillery has been reduced so that regular artillery and horse artillery have an effective range of 5 hexes; howitzers, an effective range of 3 hexes; and heavy artillery, an effective range of 6 hexes.



I know that units are not just composed of only one troop type, eg Infantry Divisions contain their own inherent artillery elements, but even so, it seems strange to have regular artillery units with an effective range not even double that of predominantly musket armed infantry, whose effective range should be inside 100 yards IMHO.

Ian



ian77 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 3:51:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

* Frigates now have an anti-privateering function. At the end of every movement phase, each frigate has a 20% chance of destroying one non-allied privateer located in the same movement area. (This destruction is reported in the frigate's and privateer's player's Events Report.)



This sounds like a great solution, especially the "non allied" rather than just enemy.... now all we need is to have allied privateers reduce their attacks on our trade.[;)]

Ian



ericbabe -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 4:26:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ian77
Will this not mean that a full strength division could now only cause a maximum of 500 casualties to a shattered division with only 1000 strength left... effectively no unit can now be destroyed during detailed combat, since its surviving strength can only ever be halved...?


Yes, it makes it much harder to eliminate a division during detailed combat, and makes for much diminished returns for beating up on an already battered and broken unit. It primarily was meant to address the too-large casualty rate when many bonuses applied to an artillery attack (say, at short range, with combined flanking arms, against a target in the mud). I also thought that recent tweaks in the past few versions made for too great a casualty level, and also a too-disproportionate level of casualties between winner and loser.

At the end of every movement phase, divisions with fewer than 2,000 strength are destroyed (for artillery divisions, fewer than 1,000; ships with fewer than 3 strength). So divisions can be eliminated as the result of detailed combat fairly easily, but not as easily during detailed combat.


quote:


Since NML is effected by casualties, will I now be better off to leave an army facing defeat with lots of depleted divisions, rather than amalgamating them into stronger more effective formations, since smaller weaker units will suffer far fewer casualties if caught in a devestating barrage or volley, and reduce the hit to my NML?


I think it will make the "split division" command available in detailed combat more useful. But remembering the 2,000 limit, I don't think you'd want to keep your divisions too depleted. Also the upkeep/supply costs seem to be a good limiting factor on the tendency to want depleted divisions. Also note that we've decreased the potency of artillery (at least at longer ranges), so hopefully you won't have as much fear when maneuvering with larger divisions.

Also remember that the damage a division causes is proportional to its strength -- so if you keep half-strength divisions, you'll only be able to concentrate half-strength attacks on a given area.

I considered making the rule that whenever a division takes this 50% damage cap that it automatically becomes disordered, but I decided to wait and see what people thought of the rule before expanding on it.




ericbabe -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 4:31:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ian77
I know that units are not just composed of only one troop type, eg Infantry Divisions contain their own inherent artillery elements, but even so, it seems strange to have regular artillery units with an effective range not even double that of predominantly musket armed infantry, whose effective range should be inside 100 yards IMHO.


The range curves are different; infantry are much less effective at the outside limits of their ranges, whereas artillery's damage curve is flatter. Also, you are correct that we consider infantry divisions to contain an inherent amount of support artillery.




canuck64 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 5:19:37 PM)

Just an adjunct to what has been said-I believe that it was very difficult (in fact should still be) to completely DESTROYED as a result of combat. Why would we want to see that? That so rarely happens that concern over it seems arguably poorly spent...

Generally returns of greater than 10% casualty totals are enough for the discerning commander of any war to consider a particular unit "hors de combat"-not to say that figure hasn't been transgressed often-but truly, as an attacker-thinking 3-1 odds for favorable outcome (unless you're a tactical genius in the mode of Nappy), you're considering that units that have taken their fair share of casualties are rotated OUT of immediate danger.
On the defense of course, depending on circumstance, necessity might require keeping shredded divisions in the line, but even there, there's a point of such diminished return that the unit in quesion is no longer functional. I'm quite sure that it's rarely been the case that NO troops are left of a particular organization. Long before that happens the balance will surrender (or should)or flee. So the "eternal divisibility" thing that happens here as a result of the recent implementation of combat casualties actually (I think) doesn't challenge reality at all.

At the other end, at least the ridiculous "one shot-5000 casualty" thing is one of the past. I think this tidies up detailed battle somewhat.




Khornish -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 6:08:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64
At the other end, at least the ridiculous "one shot-5000 casualty" thing is one of the past. I think this tidies up detailed battle somewhat.


As well as the 1-shot 13K casualties.



ian77 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 7:13:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64

Just an adjunct to what has been said-I believe that it was very difficult (in fact should still be) to completely DESTROYED as a result of combat. Why would we want to see that? That so rarely happens that concern over it seems arguably poorly spent...

Generally returns of greater than 10% casualty totals are enough for the discerning commander of any war to consider a particular unit "hors de combat"-not to say that figure hasn't been transgressed often-but truly, as an attacker-thinking 3-1 odds for favorable outcome (unless you're a tactical genius in the mode of Nappy), you're considering that units that have taken their fair share of casualties are rotated OUT of immediate danger.
On the defense of course, depending on circumstance, necessity might require keeping shredded divisions in the line, but even there, there's a point of such diminished return that the unit in quesion is no longer functional. I'm quite sure that it's rarely been the case that NO troops are left of a particular organization. Long before that happens the balance will surrender (or should)or flee. So the "eternal divisibility" thing that happens here as a result of the recent implementation of combat casualties actually (I think) doesn't challenge reality at all.

At the other end, at least the ridiculous "one shot-5000 casualty" thing is one of the past. I think this tidies up detailed battle somewhat.




I agree with all of the above.

I was not meaning to argue for the complete 100% destruction of a division as such, but rather that three 67% depleted divisions would take fewer casualties than one comparable full strength division. The complete loss of a division punishes the player who continues to utilise units which need rebuilding, I just worry that this will encourage the fielding of depleted divisions..... if not reward it with reduced NML losses?

Ian



carburo -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 8:14:59 PM)

Good to see there is now a way of fighting privateers, even if the “allied” ones are still out of reach. But I would like to propose that merchants and privateers be weaker than they currently are when fighting regular battle ships. Some randomness is OK, but I have had several battles where a group of privateers and merchants have defeated a fleet of frigates and ships. Even with the wind advantage, they shouldn’t have so big a chance against battle ships. Yesterday night five Swedish privateers and a British merchant sunk half of Villeneuve’s fleet outside the bay of Naples, even though I already have the three naval upgrades and my fleet was larger and composed of ships and heavy ships. The problem I see with the new feature is that if you put a couple of frigates in the sea zone where the enemy privateers are, and get a quick battle, there is a fair chance your frigates are going to the bottom of the sea before the turn ends. The new feature should be combined with weakening the combat capabilities of merchants and privateers. Also, privateers behave more like pirate fleets that as individual sea thugs. They concentrate and fight together against enemy fleets. It would be nice if you could move a couple of frigates to a sea zone and had the opportunity of fighting enemy privateers one or two at a time. After all, there wasn’t a Unified Command of Privateers at the time.

I suppose this has been discussed already, but protectorates continue to build way too many troops. I don’t need to build but the specialized units (heavy artillery, rifle, etc.), and this just for the flavor. Protectorates supply me every spring with an endless stream of infantry and cavalry, and even artillery. It doesn’t matter if they are feudal levies or regularly bought units, the fact is it makes the game too easy. I assume this is a consequence of the fact that AI nations need to constantly build new units to compensate for the ones they lose in battle, but the human player simply doesn’t lose nearly as many. As a result, protectorates build troops at an AI nation’s pace, but when human controlled, lose them at a human player’s rate. The only way out I see is making human controlled protectorates to only replace the units they lose, and not build new ones. Once they fall under an IA nations, or go independent, they can go back to the troop frenzy.

Last thing. I think villages and forest should give a much bigger defensive bonus, especially against fire attacks, and serve as affective anchor points for the battle line. Also, any infantry/cavalry in a village or forest should automatically deploy skirmishers, and artillery should not be able to fire from such terrain. And you shouldn’t be able to charge in skirmish mode, so charging directly from the woods or a village shouldn’t be possible.



ericbabe -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 9:44:52 PM)

Good points Carburo.

I'll weaken non-military ships a bit. With the new anti-privateering rule I may leave privateers out of combat altogether. It wouldn't often happen, if at all, that privateers and ships-of-the-line would be in an action against each other.

We're definitely working on limits for protectorate troops -- your analysis is a good one.

I could see giving villages/forests a bigger defensive bonus vs fire attacks, but I'm not sure I'd want to make infantry automatically skirmish in these locations. There is a penalty for firing out of rough terrain when not in skirmish mode, and going into skirmish mode represents deploying intelligently and coordinating fire when attacking out of rough terrain (something that trained infantry were much better at doing, from what I've read), so I wouldn't want to make this automatic I think.

I would like to add some intermediately skilled skirmishing units. Presently light infantry can skirmish perfectly and everybody else only 50%, with a lot of movement points consumed. We could either make an upgrade to raise the rate to 75%, or else give bonuses for higher morale units.




canuck64 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 10:43:56 PM)

In reply to Ian-
quote:

I was not meaning to argue for the complete 100% destruction of a division as such, but rather that three 67% depleted divisions would take fewer casualties than one comparable full strength division. The complete loss of a division punishes the player who continues to utilise units which need rebuilding, I just worry that this will encourage the fielding of depleted divisions..... if not reward it with reduced NML losses?


I was also thinking the other day that not only were most of the units at the time understrength, but that that also might make for a particular 'strategy'. If I have France, I might want an army of 3-4 Corps of few, choice, and varied elite units with a full load of upgrades...as that is possible. Were I Russia, I might want 3-5 Armies of same Corps with as many diluted infantry units as possible. Keeps my cost down, different military philosophy of mass, and if my battles chew through them, who cares? I have a veritable sea of cannon fodder.

Then I might divert more attention to welfare, say, to keep up my NML, or other such tricks of the trade.
My question-is this (combined with the new casualty situation) an EXPLOIT? or merely an intelligent way that might in fact mimic history to some extent to compete militarily, in different fashion? Is more better? Has anyone actually tried this?

When I go to war, I immediately assume I need to be at minimum 90% effectiveness. Rewards me, I can split my units in battle, and run the risk of pure divisional destruction to a minimum.
That said, having twice the number of 50% ready divisions might be a blessing, especially for FOW and foraging purposes. Does anyone know?



canuck64 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 10:52:44 PM)

Incidentally, apologize for the repeat post-BUT

is it mentioned anywhere in the manual, or Eric can you enlighten us on design philosophy behind merchants?
If I have a single British merchant in the Channel, I can count on (ballpark) a LISTED 100 coin return. Makes sense this would be diluted somewhat as competing merchants come in. I know this total is to some degree dependent on banks/docks improvements in the adjacent provinces...but-
WHY if I am challenged for mercantile return in the Channel by a single French merchant am I immediately dropped to a third of this same return? Logically, if that occurs, I would then send ANOTHER merchant into the same water, (yes further dilution)-BUT this then drops to mere pennies?
I confess the merchant thing just eludes me somewhat.
How can competetion ALWAYS mean a lower return on investment? I should think there was some upward variable there as well, whether predictable or not, no?
Please wade in to correct my strategy on merchants-they're at best an afterthought for me, and I think there's more to be gotten out of them-barring setting up an embargo and all the issues that accompany that.

Last question-having done the embargo thing, is there a way to STOP an embargo? Recall France issuing one on Spain, and me not being able to undo, or stop it afterwards....? yes?



carburo -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/11/2006 11:11:54 PM)

Eric,
You are probably right about the skirmishing thing. I was thinking mainly of modeling villages as good defensive positions, but not as good ones for launching an attack from. The link village/woods = skirmishers = no charge possible, seemed a good option to discourage players from charging directly from those places. Maybe simply adding a penalty to charges originating from village/woods, and/or with skirmishers deployed is better. I like your idea of making the deployment of skirmishers easier, in general I like any idea that gives the defender some more staying power in the short term. Not that I want them to absorb everything we through at them, but a little more resilience would be nice. It would allow for more entertaining battles, as we would have more time for maneuvering. The new rules regarding casualties and effective range will help to that too.

BTW, I like the new supply caissons deployment rules. Not only they aren’t routed in turn 1, but now you have to ponder if it’s better to rush to the battle without enough ammunition, or wait for the caissons to get closer before you start firing. The “mobile caissons” upgrade seems more important now.



Mr. Z -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/12/2006 5:37:09 AM)

quote:

With the new anti-privateering rule I may leave privateers out of combat altogether.

Aw. I'd miss them! Fun to get the odd military effectiveness out of them :)



ian77 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/12/2006 1:55:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Z

quote:

With the new anti-privateering rule I may leave privateers out of combat altogether.

Aw. I'd miss them! Fun to get the odd military effectiveness out of them :)




Me too![:D]

Also leaving them in allows merchants to be sunk, and privateers to be pushed (retreat)into someone elses sea zone by my regular fleets. I also manage to capture the odd prize to fill out my complement of line ships from time to time, and pick up the odd few NML/glory points.. every little helps[;)]

Ian



ericbabe -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/13/2006 6:18:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: canuck64
is it mentioned anywhere in the manual, or Eric can you enlighten us on design philosophy behind merchants?


From a design perspective, I wanted merchants to be a powerful source of income, wanted to give players an incentive to build up their merchant fleet, but I wanted strong diminishing returns once too many players built a lot of merchants -- to the point where too many merchants might mean that merchants become a poor investment at some point in the game.

You can think of a single merchant in a sea zone as having a trade monopoly -- he gets away with generating outrageous revenues. Competing merchants (even from the same nation) drive profits down to much lower levels.

Embargos can only be placed through treaties -- canceling the treaty should cancel the embargo.



canuck64 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/13/2006 6:50:12 PM)

Fair enough, but is there any "qualitative" modifier for merchants? Put it this way-arguably at this stage, all merchants are alike-but really, Britain dominated mercantile revenues.

Would it not make sense to have a merchant fleet benefit (since they have a morale as well) from having been built in a port with dock size 8, or 9? I understand the design philosophy from what you said, but as it currently sits, Britain's merchants are the same as Tunisia's. This was hardly the case in real life as it still isn't. This would give some point to the process that's competetive, (in fact competetion doesn't ALWAYS mean poorer revenues-at least not to the semblance that it does now)
Ultimately, it makes building them almost pointless....no? -WITHOUT going to war. This might deepen a tad the naval model, force us to protect merchants, and compel us AWAY from always generating revenue on land (and using money towards other things than building land troops.)

Would this not be an easy change to implement? I'm arguing for a morale modifier to merchants. That way I derive some monetary benefit that I CAN RECOUP from having built up my docks to +9...

Arguments against or for would be appreciated.



canuck64 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/13/2006 6:57:19 PM)

One last thing-some favoritism towards MY merchants should exist from my own ports, no? I should get a few pennies more than competing Swiss merchant marine (despite their glorious history)

[:D]



JavaJoe -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/14/2006 8:24:52 PM)

Still getting the same problem on loading the system crashes on the "y" in copywrite.

:)



ericbabe -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/16/2006 4:03:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JavaJoe

Still getting the same problem on loading the system crashes on the "y" in copywrite.

:)


Have you tried updating your sound-drivers? The one time I've been able to duplicate the crash you described was on a machine with out of date sound drivers. (Note that Windows didn't think the sound drivers were out of date, which made detecting the problem rather difficult.)




ericbabe -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/16/2006 4:07:14 PM)

Giving a qualitative bonus to merchants based on their morale level is a good idea, though I'd like to find a simple way to do it without making the merchant formula even more complicated.



Russian Guard -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/16/2006 5:07:42 PM)


In my opinion this shouldn't be changed, regardless of historical realities.

The British already have a tremendous advantage at sea.

I feel that the whole issue of merchant ship placement/income should be left to the realm of diplomacy between players. If I'm playing England, I will tell even my Allies where they can and cannot place their merchant vessels - or rather, that they cannot place merchants where mine operate. If they refuse to observe this Merchant hegemony, they will face a lack of British interest in their land campaigns, and no loans, or even war. The other naval powers can offer varying options that favor the British elsewhere, in exchange for more favorable Merchant income.

The point being; Britain can dominate the seas through diplomacy or war, and other nations can negotiate more favorable access to Merchant income. If the rules make Britian dominant on this issue by default, then we have less diplomacy.

Solo games are a bit more problematic; you can't negotiate Merchant activity, per se. It takes some finesse but again can be managed (for example, I allowed the French fleet to sail into the North Sea to attack a Swedish Merchant fleet there, since I could not attack that fleet due to our mutual war with the French - talk about Machiavellian [:D] )








canuck64 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/16/2006 11:14:23 PM)

So,

In other words, Russian Guard, what I'm pining for wouldn't impact you or your MP games, which is good to hear-at least not with respect to your relations with the other major powers, which you say you back off as part of diplomacy from your mercantile interests. minors are another matter, but it intrudes on you as well....no control over them diplomatically....
But you're right-solo play primarily makes little sense as it currently stands with merchants....
Keeping that in mind-, were some nation hard up for cash in MP, or in solo, and wanted to challenge England with some sort of subtle economic warfare, there should be some means available... but not an elimination of returns altogether.
As it stands now it makes it impossible for other nations to even invest in competing...or hardly worthwhile.


In short, building a competetive mercantile marine seems like sound economics to me-period wise particularly-but the game in its present state does not really reward this at all. There should be some sort of return for this investment in docks, and ships, in further merchant competetion-not merely less and less money available to be earned....no? Doesn't make sense.
1 merchant in Eng Channel earns 100. 2 each earn 20?
I confess it eludes me why if the game engine considers 100 the return on mercantile activity (a monopoly), for ONE merchant, and you have 2 in there, then the return is 20. Even if 50 each, the monopoly is already broken significantly. Add more, and more merchants, and eventually you have nothing to earn. But no qualifiers, no ability to keep this from happening exists. A merchant is(at present) like any other merchant. That shouldn't be if I'm from england and can guarantee you trade even in the event of war, as I have the British navy behind me.

If this makes things too uneven, add some sort of upkeep cost on navies (another thing I'm in favor of). They were HUGELY expensive entities to maintain, and the game doesn't refect that too much right now. I guess my argument's locus is that if you deepen the naval game, and show a sensible (manipulable) return on investment, then the land armies won't be quite so ahistorically huge, and maybe deepen the economic model a bit. As it stands, merchants don't make money all too easily, and there's no pricing raise or decline on commodities. It detracts from a great game that there's no presence of competetion in economics at all I think.



Russian Guard -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/17/2006 12:15:27 AM)


Well I think there's two issues here.

I certainly wasn't disputing the historical realty of your original point. I'm just concerned that providing England with yet another advantage at sea is potentially unbalancing and mimimizes the need for diplomacy and, conversely, potential conflict.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point; it seems to me that you wanted Brit Merchant ships to produce more income based on National qualitative advantages, than their opponents?

I think the example you state creates conflict, which can be a good thing. If the British (or whomever was there first) merchant vessel is knocking back 100 gold a month and then another merchant vessel enters the area and they BOTH drop to 20, there's conflict, or at least a good reason for one, because they both suffer equally for the other's presence.

I _do_ like your idea of increased income from ports with advanced docks. That's a way that a Nation can increase its naval infrastructure in an abstract way and improve on the performance of its merchant fleets.

Shoot gotta go but don't want to not post at least this much - more later.










canuck64 -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/17/2006 1:20:01 AM)

Russian-in a word, yes-but

I wanted the individual merchant's morale-dependant on the location and dock size that it was built with-similar to infantry, say-to influence income in a location. I also wanted that if I have 2 merchants to your 1, and all at similar morale, that I should make 66.6 percent more than you of the total up for grabs.

This way, I can compete if I choose as Austria-either upgrade my docks so I produce 'superior' merchants to compete with England's, or produce 5 lesser-quality merchants to achieve the same goal.

Bear in mind my ARMY can protect Trieste to an extent. But spending all those resources on a vast but lousy merchant fleet, well-suffice to say Austria would be challenged to protect it.

I also emailed Eric to ask about possibly implementing SOME maintenance cost on ships in general-the heavier the ship, the more it should cost. It wasn't cheap to keep a navy, and if we deepen the naval model a hair or two, it will compel us to engage. Right now, everyone more or less assumes Britain to rule the roost and I think generally ignores the challenge on any level. I think more civilized competition is healthy, would make having a navy purposeful. Otherwise we leave England to rule the sea, and I see no point to building merchants in general. Return right now is too poor. So why upgrade docks? To build 5 ships that can't compete with England (fighting ships)?

I just find there's too many shared bodies of water for what you say occurs in your MP games to make sense to me. Adriatic, English Channel, just about ALL of the Mediterranean.

Not only that, but why is there EVER NO income (try east coast of france, or the eastern med at the start from locations with banks AND docks. Nope, something about the current structure escapes me entirely-just looking for some "naval" stimulus for the more land-oriented nations.



Khornish -> RE: v1.2.18 Beta Now Available (1/19/2006 2:19:32 PM)

Eric,

I am unable to declare war on Prussia, as Austria, in my game at all. Early on in the game I had an alliance with Prussia, they later cancelled it.

Now, a few years after the cancelled alliance, I notice that I cannot declare war on prussia.

There are no outstanding treaties that would prevent me from DOW.

My attitiude towards Prussia is the greenish face, so this _may_ have something to do with it, I don't know.

Additionally, the AI is definately getting away with not paying up properly on load treaties. I'd mentioned this before in the MP game, but it's definately happening in SP games.

Currently the AI is paying less than it should to repay a loan, but there's no penalty hit to glory during the month or at the conclusion of the treaty.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.328125